{"id":318,"date":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=318"},"modified":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","slug":"adeeb-marina-code-enforcement-monell-cpra-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=318","title":{"rendered":"Adeeb v. City of Marina \u2014 N.D. Cal. dismisses sprawling code-enforcement retaliation suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Ayman Adeeb v. City of Marina, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-02<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-04062<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Monell liability; First Amendment retaliation; equal protection; Fair Housing Act; Excessive Fines Clause; Penn Central regulatory takings; California Public Records Act; exhaustion of administrative remedies<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Dr. Ayman Adeeb is a contractor and dentist who owns or holds in trust four properties in the City of Marina, on California\u2019s Monterey Bay. Beginning in 2023 and 2024, he raised concerns over what he characterized as discriminatory and unequal code enforcement against his properties. On January 24, 2025, he filed a California Public Records Act request seeking the city\u2019s internal communications and inspection records related to enforcement on his properties.<\/p>\n

According to his First Amended Complaint, the city responded just three days later by issuing an Unsafe to Occupy notice for two units at 327 Reservation Road. He says the city followed up with reinspection fees over $118,000, a February 2025 red tag at 235 Reindollar Avenue for a bathroom and kitchen violation that had been approved and inspected in 2022, additional citations, plan rejections, and revocations. He says tenants vacated, construction stopped, and his elderly mother (a co-owner) suffered serious distress.<\/p>\n

Adeeb, proceeding pro se, filed in Monterey County Superior Court. The defendants \u2014 the City of Marina and a roster of city officials \u2014 removed the case to the Northern District of California and moved to dismiss the twenty causes of action on grounds including failure to state a Monell claim, immunity, exhaustion, and failure to plead the elements of various constitutional and statutory claims.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge P. Casey Pitts granted the motion to dismiss in full, with leave to amend, and dismissed the claims along several separate tracks.<\/p>\n

First, all \u00a7 1983 claims against the City of Marina failed under Monell v. Department of Social Services<\/em>. Adeeb conclusorily described a coordinated campaign across departments but did not identify a city policy, custom, or ratified decision tying the alleged misconduct to the municipality, and his references to specific exhibits did not match the documents he had attached. Supervisory liability was not adequately pleaded either, because there were no facts showing supervisors directed or knowingly failed to stop violations.<\/p>\n

Second, the federal First Amendment retaliation theory failed on the third Cheairs v. City of Seattle<\/em> element \u2014 substantial-or-motivating factor. Documents Adeeb himself attached showed the city had been corresponding with him about violations at the Reservation Road property before his January 2025 CPRA request, and that the Reindollar Avenue violations dated back to 2022. Without plausible temporal proximity tied to protected activity, the inference of retaliation was implausible.<\/p>\n

Third, the equal protection claims failed under both protected-class and class-of-one frameworks (notably the Ninth Circuit\u2019s SmileDirectClub<\/em> standard for similarly situated comparators), and the Fair Housing Act \u00a7 3604(b) claim failed for the same reason \u2014 there were no non-conclusory facts tying the city\u2019s actions to Adeeb\u2019s Middle Eastern ancestry.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the Excessive Fines Clause claim failed under the four-factor Bajakajian<\/em>\/Pimentel<\/em> test: the underlying property-code violations were not minor, and the harms (including erosion of the city\u2019s safety-code purposes) cut against finding gross disproportion. The takings claim failed under Penn Central<\/em> because Adeeb owned the properties subject to known city codes, did not plausibly plead that the city singled him out, and did not allege residual property values to anchor the economic-impact factor.<\/p>\n

Fifth, the \u00a7 1985 conspiracy claims failed for lack of an underlying federal-rights violation. The court also flagged that the case Adeeb cited for his civil-conspiracy theory does not appear to exist.<\/p>\n

Finally, the state-law claims (CPRA, UCL, IIED, and several state-law constitutional theories) were dismissed for failure to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies. Marina Municipal Code \u00a7 8.70.100 provides for administrative appeals of nuisance determinations. Adeeb\u2019s only documented appeals concerned different citations than those he based his claims on, and his futility argument failed because he had not pleaded that the city had pre-announced how it would rule. The court noted that the California Government Claims Act might also bar some claims but declined to reach that issue.<\/p>\n

Adeeb has 28 days to file a Second Amended Complaint or face dismissal with prejudice.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n